Skins Noob problem to 4k skin modding.

[Abilio_KID]

I personally don't use 3D templates; they come with their own large drawbacks. A properly UV mapped car should be quite simple to paint on a 2D template, and allows you to use some other features of Photoshop that offer benefits that 3D painting just can't match.

I didn't say "3D template". I said I use the 3D to paint in Photoshop as a mere reference (positioning, scale, etc.) then I do all work in 2D. With "disassemble" I meant to create the UVmaps in a program that reads them from 3D. The templates I create are 2D^^

 

[Ryno917]

I didn't say "3D template". I said I use the 3D to paint in Photoshop as a mere reference (positioning, scale, etc.) then I do all work in 2D. With "disassemble" I meant to create the UVmaps in a program that reads them from 3D. The templates I create are 2D^^

Ahhh ok. Misunderstood that part.

I know there's several guys here who paint with 3D templates - works for them, but I personally don't like them. A well UV'd model with a good wireframe in the template is much better imho.

 

[AnklaX]

Thanks for all responses. Keep them coming guys. I see there's a lot to learn here. I'm not modding right now but then I'll hit a modding spree and it's all I'll be doing day and night.

 

[A3DR]

Ahhh ok. Misunderstood that part.

I know there's several guys here who paint with 3D templates - works for them, but I personally don't like them. A well UV'd model with a good wireframe in the template is much better imho.

Depends on what you call "a well UV'd model", a good UV won't have any stretching and all parts are scaled evenly, with minimal to none open seams on the panels, and taking the most UV space as possible without blank spots.

As for the layout, I can see the benefits of having a more linear looking UV map for 2D painting, but to be honest that's old history. 3D painting in PS or some other software like Quixel or Substance is far more precise and faster than messing with a 2D file and looking at the 3D model on a different software.
It also allows the modeler to take better advantage of the UV space, avoid having open seams on body panels (which usually results in reflection or normals issues depends on the shader) and giving better per pixel resolution than trying to fit the entire car in a straight way just so someone else can paint it "the old fashioned way".

 

[Ryno917]

Depends on what you call "a well UV'd model", a good UV won't have any stretching and all parts are scaled evenly, with minimal to none open seams on the panels, and taking the most UV space as possible without blank spots.

As for the layout, I can see the benefits of having a more linear looking UV map for 2D painting, but to be honest that's old history. 3D painting in PS or some other software like Quixel or Substance is far more precise and faster than messing with a 2D file and looking at the 3D model on a different software.
It also allows the modeler to take better advantage of the UV space, avoid having open seams on body panels (which usually results in reflection or normals issues depends on the shader) and giving better per pixel resolution than trying to fit the entire car in a straight way just so someone else can paint it "the old fashioned way".

AFAIK you can't use vectors with 3D painting, or smart objects. That creates complications down the line for creating alpha channels or other image maps (like the "_map.DDS" we have in AC). It also means you have to erase and re-draw to alter designs, instead of just quickly tweaking. I've also found the PS 3D capability to be quite system heavy, it's always been slow for me.

Granted I haven't done much with 3D painting, but all of the above are issues I haven't found solutions for, and all of the above are critical things for me when working on a livery.

 

[A3DR]

You can save the paths as usual, save selections, layers, etc. Same with smart objects, save the layer (merge a copy of the layer into the 3D model, so you can keep the original layer).

Cameras also have custom presets you can save to match a layer position, so if you have to adjust a shape you can always go back to the same camera / layer view and do it there without having to do it all over again.

As for the alpha for the decal thing, using levels adjustment on the final skin can turn it into a black and white alpha channel, or as I've mentioned before, saving a camera for each layer will get you the decals in the exact same position to do a black and white mask.

With all this, you save yourself the trouble of dealing with the UV, is more of a "what you see is what you get" workflow.

 

[Ryno917]

You can save the paths as usual, save selections, layers, etc. Same with smart objects, save the layer (merge a copy of the layer into the 3D model, so you can keep the original layer).

Cameras also have custom presets you can save to match a layer position, so if you have to adjust a shape you can always go back to the same camera / layer view and do it there without having to do it all over again.

As for the alpha for the decal thing, using levels adjustment on the final skin can turn it into a black and white alpha channel, or as I've mentioned before, saving a camera for each layer will get you the decals in the exact same position to do a black and white mask.

With all this, you save yourself the trouble of dealing with the UV, is more of a "what you see is what you get" workflow.

So you can still draw vector paths on the 3D model (projected from a defined viewpoint)? And apply vector shapes/smart objects on 3D (projected from a defined viewpoint)? If those aren't possible, then the workflow becomes convoluted. That's still better than I was able to find when I last looked (I Googled "vector shapes Photoshop 3D painting" and similar for an hour the other day and came up with absolutely nothing). There's still the issue of projecting a flat object onto a complex 3D shape, though - if you want a logo to wrap up and over the fender, you're still going to get it skewed towards the ends of it, unless it can somehow intelligently wrap it around the corner. Is that possible? Otherwise you still have to paste two copies of it, from two different views, and manually knit them together around the corner - and then you have to knit them with rasters.

Levels adjustment is not sufficient for alpha channels - that will make changes based on the colour of what is being used, plus you run into anti-aliasing issues where it'll pick up some of the hue, but not all of it, etc. The colour of an item has absolutely nothing to do with the alpha channel - a red logo and a blue logo and a yellow logo may all need to be the same shade of grey in the alpha, while the black and white paint may need to be the same light grey, and the orange may need to be black in the alpha. You can't do that with levels. Having to go back to a particular view and try to pick colours out of a logo to make a proper alpha is also convoluted. The reason I use vector shapes and vector smart objects is so that I can very easily change them to the desired greyscale (or other colours, like for the _map texture) with a couple clicks at most, with 100% accuracy and absolutely no anti-aliasing issues. If I know what colours I need things, the alpha channel and _map textures take me a minute combined to produce, whereas if I had to screw around with levels, colour replacer or saved selections, I'd spend hours. Working in vector makes changes far easier than working in raster, even after you factor in the minor nuisance of alignment across a UV gap. I'd rather spend a few minutes aligning a graphic across the 2D UV gap than spend an hour trying to pick selections without missing those couple anti-aliased pixels so I can make my alpha channel.